Garrisons and Food, how do you maintain it?

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Has anyone found a formula or working strat for how many men you can put in a garrison and how much food production you need?
I've been trying to keep it under 200 men in garrison and basically buy all the food in the world and selling it to my towns to get a big +food bonus and fill the stock.
I have all upgrades, irrigation on and the law that give +2 food.
My food still abruptly plummets and my garrison starts to bleed men. It's ****ing stupid and there's no nice way to say it.
What's more, if you lower garrison too much you get a -security as if you're supposed to have a certain amount or more, but there's no way to maintain it.
I think caravans and lords can just buy up all the food (increasing prosperity?) from my town and plummet my food. If this increases prosperity then it makes them eat more food and so it's ****ed since I can't just store food for the garrison or any other remedy but selling them food.

Unless I'm wrong, is there any chance the stash can give food to my garrison? It doesn't seem to but maybe somebody has look under the hood?

Of 3 towns 1 seems to last pretty long when I drop off food, 1 is kinda in the middle and 1 will drop off from 160+ to killing the garrison very fast.
I know there's a mod for this but I'm trying to play beta unmodded for feedback, but this makes the mid-game just ****.

 

[ἀποκάλυψις]

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/linking-prosperity-with-food-production-creates-an-inescapable-downward-spiral-for-fiefs.404712/

 

[paladinx333]

You can't put any troops into garrisons as the city will auto-build militia in excessive amounts. The militia will eat up all the food. Without mods your troops will starve and desert.

The whole food production/consumption mechanic is poorly thought out and it just does not work very well.

 

[Vaeringjar]

...have a look at my mods, they address this issue. Link in my signature.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/linking-prosperity-with-food-production-creates-an-inescapable-downward-spiral-for-fiefs.404712/

I've read though it, it's worse then I thought. I see one town has more grain farms so that's likely why it has less problems, it still has then just not as quickly.

...have a look at my mods, they address this issue. Link in my signature.

I've installed the garrisons don't starve and so far no trouble. Thanks.

 

[Dabos37]

Uhmmmm not sure if you are aware of this but if you buy a lot of grain and sell it in your town, you wont have any issue with food, even if you have 200 men in garrison plus militia.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Uhmmmm not sure if you are aware of this but if you buy a lot of grain and sell it in your town, you wont have any issue with food, even if you have 200 men in garrison plus militia.

Uhmmmm not sure you read my post I clearly said i buy all the food in the world and sell it to my towns.
Uhmmmm not sure if you're aware but you're wrong and will eventually lose your garrison.

 

[GuitarGangster]

I've read though it, it's worse then I thought. I see one town has more grain farms so that's likely why it has less problems, it still has then just not as quickly.

Villages from nearby castles also deliver their products to the nearest town of their own faction. If they belong to a different faction, food is missing. Delivering food yourself might help on short term, but in the long run it can reduce the price for food, hence merchants want to buy food from that town, instead of selling it. I played food delivery service for way too long, but it did not help at all. In the end it's best to move the borders of your faction away from that town by conquest and leave the town to its misery. My town still goes through food shortage from time to time but its a lot less severe now that the war has moved to a different region on the map. This also prevents armies from buying all the food there which happend a lot earlier. I hated this starvation thing at first, but its actualy kind of realistic.

 

[pyerr]

I also tried to play this game without mods. It's unplayable or extremely frustrating. It's that simple, game is just poorly coded/unfinished.
You have two choices: continue trying to solve unsolvable equation or install mod.
About you question, once I sold food from my army to village that supplies starving city, and i think it worked but I am not 100% sure.
My point is , if I as king suppose to run around buying and selling food to my willages then it's beyond ridiculous.

 

[paladinx333]

...have a look at my mods, they address this issue. Link in my signature.

I love your mods. I am using three of them including the garrisons don't stave mod. Keep up the good work!

 

[Owen Wulfson]

At the moment I am reluctant to use mods at so early a stage, although I myself have not revved up a new campaign of late. But yes, the Garrison issue is one of my key gripes in the game - second only to not being able to save our family from slavers. It's that bad.

Without the ability to maintain a large garrison, the player can't properly secure territory in a way that was possible in Warband. And besides that, having a place to stockpile troops ensures that the player can build up their forces overtime without running themselves ragged trying to manage everything in a single party. It's galling that we can possibly get our garrison limit in the game for a settlement to well over 400 with city upgrades and the leadership skill, not to mention a few scattered perks, but that in practice we can barely maintain a garrison of 50 during during times of war even when our villages aren't being raided.

If the developers want the basic militia to ebb and flow with the city's prosperity then fine - I would rather rely entirely on my garrison than have to juggle the needs of a force I have no control over and only seems to produce poorly armored, lackluster troops.

...have a look at my mods, they address this issue. Link in my signature.

Your efforts are a boon to the community. While I hope the developers fix this issue satisfactorily on their own for the base game, it's good to know the modding community is willing to pick up the slack in overlooked areas. Again, it's early access so we shall see.

 

[durbal]

I protect my villages and bring food to the town if need be. The garrison mechanic is totally fine for me.

I don't understand people looking to mods so that they can shove 400 soldiers in a raided, devastated border town and get yet another advantage with something the AI won't/can't use all while breaking one of the few game mechanics that's actually implemented well.

 

[Owen Wulfson]

Implemented well? More like barely explained and poorly implemented. If it's an exploit to be able to store 400 troops in a town then why is the garrison limit allowed to be placed that high? I would be fine with a non starving garrison at a far lower number, but the current algorithms work against any kind of casual usage. We should not have to be crunching numbers and pouring food into our settlements in such a roundabout way just to utilize what should be a simple part of the game.

 

[Gambles]

I protect my villages and bring food to the town if need be. The garrison mechanic is totally fine for me.

I don't understand people looking to mods so that they can shove 400 soldiers in a raided, devastated border town and get yet another advantage with something the AI won't/can't use all while breaking one of the few game mechanics that's actually implemented well.

No, no it isn't. Garrisons is not the only issue, just having high prosperity will eventually starve your towns, especially because it can just keep rising. See: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/linking-prosperity-with-food-production-creates-an-inescapable-downward-spiral-for-fiefs.404712/

Own a kingdom, have a bunch of fiefs, even without anything in a garrisons and be at peace. Watch how unmanageable it becomes for all the high prosperity fiefs.

 

[pyerr]

I protect my villages and bring food to the town if need be. The garrison mechanic is totally fine for me.

I don't understand people looking to mods so that they can shove 400 soldiers in a raided, devastated border town and get yet another advantage with something the AI won't/can't use all while breaking one of the few game mechanics that's actually implemented well.

I also own kingdom, 26 lords, 45+ fiefs combined , i personally have 7 fiefs. Overall strength is over 22k, so basically bunch of vassals run around + 3 my own companion armies, killing looters and protecting my villages. I still have starving city with no garrison troops, only militia.
As far as I know , it's all about supporting villages and what they produce. Unfortunately i lost my main saved game because i experimented with mods, so I can't confirm my theory...

 

[durbal]

No, no it isn't. Garrisons is not the only issue, just having high prosperity will eventually starve your towns, especially because it can just keep rising. See: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...inescapable-downward-spiral-for-fiefs.404712/

Own a kingdom, have a bunch of fiefs, even without anything in a garrisons and be at peace. Watch how unmanageable it becomes for all the high prosperity fiefs.

I've read that thread and it's full of people who don't understand the system and think it's broken because they don't understand it. I have castles with no actual food-producing villages with hundreds in their garrisons and still have a +14 or so surplus of food. If the system could improve it'd definitely be through making it more transparent and documented though.

Prosperity itself and its relation to food is not the issue. If there were an 'inescapable downward spiral' as the thread claims then it'd be because low prosperity lowers available food while low available food lowers prosperity. That's not the case -- high prosperity lowers available food, which means there will be an equilibrium.

Conquered cities take time to nurture and stabilize toward equilibrium with the current system and I like that. There's an overwhelming mentality that people should be able to just dump troops into garrisons and say 'cool, seeya, I'm gonna go conquer the next spot' which is boring, unrealistic, feeds into the snowballing issue, and makes conquering always being the best thing to do (as opposed to training, improving relations, growing your fiefs, etc.). And it's not even entirely their fault to think that, but throwing out the prosperity-food system also throws out devastation from war and just impoverishes gameplay overall (economics, warfare, etc.)

There are a few issues with the game that make people think prosperity-food is the issue:

1. Prosperity is not beneficial. It should lead to more taxes which allow you to field a bigger army, be more powerful, and all the associated stuff. Unfortunately, the economy is fundamentally broken by ridiculous loot prices and way too much plunder from battles (which themselves are caused partially by zombie swarms of respawning lords). If people thought 'hey, my prosperity is high so I get more cash for better or more troops' then they wouldn't care that their garrisons were smaller because their garrisons would still be sufficient and they'd have a benefit from the prosperity while it stabilizes with food. Right now, prosperity isn't helpful because money is endless and only takes away food from garrisons, hence players thinking the system is broken -- it's not, players just don't need or want prosperity since it provides little or no benefit.
2. Zombie swarms of respawning lords are breaking food production. They will endlessly respawn and always with enough manpower to raid even if they can't form an army or siege, so they will continually raid, kill villagers, chase away caravans, and basically disrupt the whole system. The disruption mechanics and starving cities through them are fine -- even very well-made I'd add -- but because the player is unable to protect against this constant threat his cities will eventually lack the food they need. And because most player cities are border towns that were conquered and started with zero militia the enemy prioritizes them. So what does the player do? He wants to plan an offensive but can't stop the raids, so he figures he'll dump troops into the garrison to at least protect the city and sees that his garrison is shrinking due to lack of food production and blames the prosperity-food link. Again, the prosperity-food link is not a problem -- the lack of food is. If there's a vicious cycle it's that players can't maintain garrisons to protect cities because they lack food, and they lack food because they can't protect villages since they're stuck defending towns with no garrison. End the zombie respawns and food production won't be an issue when villages are defensible and properly defended.
3. Random wars on multiple fronts. Same issue as the zombie respawns in (2) above, but this further complicates the issue since it makes holding multiple fiefs even harder due to travel times. Constant war, indefensible villages, and endless zombie raids from lords with free armies that respawn endlessly with enough troops to raid. It also messes with caravans a lot since they're unable to really travel outside of their home territory when everything is hostile to them.

 

[Gambles]

I've read that thread and it's full of people who don't understand the system and think it's broken because they don't understand it. I have castles with no actual food-producing villages with hundreds in their garrisons and still have a +14 or so surplus of food. If the system could improve it'd definitely be through making it more transparent and documented though.

Prosperity itself and its relation to food is not the issue. If there were an 'inescapable downward spiral' as the thread claims then it'd be because low prosperity lowers available food while low available food lowers prosperity. That's not the case -- high prosperity lowers available food, which means there will be an equilibrium.

Conquered cities take time to nurture and stabilize toward equilibrium with the current system and I like that. There's an overwhelming mentality that people should be able to just dump troops into garrisons and say 'cool, seeya, I'm gonna go conquer the next spot' which is boring, unrealistic, feeds into the snowballing issue, and makes conquering always being the best thing to do (as opposed to training, improving relations, growing your fiefs, etc.). And it's not even entirely their fault to think that, but throwing out the prosperity-food system also throws out devastation from war and just impoverishes gameplay overall (economics, warfare, etc.)

There are a few issues with the game that make people think prosperity-food is the issue:

1. Prosperity is not beneficial. It should lead to more taxes which allow you to field a bigger army, be more powerful, and all the associated stuff. Unfortunately, the economy is fundamentally broken by ridiculous loot prices and way too much plunder from battles (which themselves are caused partially by zombie swarms of respawning lords). If people thought 'hey, my prosperity is high so I get more cash for better or more troops' then they wouldn't care that their garrisons were smaller because their garrisons would still be sufficient and they'd have a benefit from the prosperity while it stabilizes with food. Right now, prosperity isn't helpful because money is endless and only takes away food from garrisons, hence players thinking the system is broken -- it's not, players just don't need or want prosperity since it provides little or no benefit.
2. Zombie swarms of respawning lords are breaking food production. They will endlessly respawn and always with enough manpower to raid even if they can't form an army, so they will continually raid, kill villagers, chase away caravans, and basically disrupt the whole system. The disruption mechanics and starving cities through them are fine -- even very well-made I'd add -- but because the player is unable to protect against this constant threat his cities will eventually lack the food they need. And because most player cities are border towns that were conquered and started with zero militia the enemy prioritizes them. So what does the player do? He wants to plan an offensive but can't stop the raids, so he figures he'll dump troops into the garrison to at least protect the city and sees that his garrison is shrinking due to lack of food production and blames the prosperity-food link. Again, the prosperity-food link is not a problem -- the lack of food is. If there's a vicious cycle it's that players can't maintain garrisons to protect cities because they lack food, and they lack food because they can't protect villages since they're stuck defending towns with no garrison. End the zombie respawns and food production won't be an issue when villages are defended.
3. Random wars on multiple fronts. Same issue as the zombie respawns in (2) above, but this further complicates the issue since it makes holding multiple fiefs even harder due to travel times. Constant war, indefensible villages, and endless zombie raids from lords with free armies that respawn endlessly with enough troops to raid. It also messes with caravans a lot since they're unable to really travel outside of their home territory when everything is hostile to them.

So essentially it's broken then, glad we agree.

 

[durbal]

So essentially it's broken then, glad we agree.

No. The economy is broken. Endlessly respawning lords are broken. The lack of diplomacy which makes wars and peace random are broken. Garrisons, food, and prosperity are under the umbrella of those broken systems so they get soaked when the umbrella has gaping holes in it.

 

[Gambles]

No. The economy is broken. Endlessly respawning lords are broken. The lack of diplomacy which makes wars and peace random are broken. Garrisons, food, and prosperity are under the umbrella of those broken systems so they get soaked when the umbrella has gaping holes in it.

So essentially it's broken then, glad we agree.

 

[BlazingScribe]

I've read that thread and it's full of people who don't understand the system and think it's broken because they don't understand it. I have castles with no actual food-producing villages with hundreds in their garrisons and still have a +14 or so surplus of food. If the system could improve it'd definitely be through making it more transparent and documented though.

You have actual significant garrisons? How? I had to install a mod that removed garrison's draining food entirely, and I'm still often in the negatives. Please explain your process for this, because this is easily the main thing that keeps me from wanting to play this game actively.

For perspective, I have been unable to create significant garrisons without modding assistance anywhere. I can usually create decent ones in towns, some of the time. When the villages aren't raided, the villager parties don't get mobbed by bandits, and when lords don't roll through and buy out all my food. On the other hand, my castles are always on the cusp of starvation no matter what I do. I controlled Rhemtoil castle in Battanian territory for two ingame years. In the time, I ensured that my villages stayed healthy, I completed quests for them, and did everything I could to stop them from being raided or harmed. In both villages have improved in terms of prosperity (somewhat, both are still considered poor), and the castle can only have a garrison of maybe sixty people otherwise food becomes negative. This is after upgrading literally everything, and being on perpetual food production.

Am I just incompetent or is something else going wrong here?

No. The economy is broken. Endlessly respawning lords are broken. The lack of diplomacy which makes wars and peace random are broken. Garrisons, food, and prosperity are under the umbrella of those broken systems so they get soaked when the umbrella has gaping holes in it.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I recently discovered that as a queen, I cannot declare wars. Instead this is automated. This led to my character leading my kingdom of two towns and five castles into war on two thirds of the entire map within a week. Thankfully I was able to bribe everyone into leaving me alone, which in of itself is a questionable mechanic.